Suchergebnisse

In Case C-134/19 P Bank Refah Kargaran, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) made an important pronouncement over its jurisdiction on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as it held that it can hear an action for damages allegedly suffered by a natural or legal person because of restrictive measures adopted under CFSP. This article reflects on this important development in the case law of the CJEU, by putting it in the context of what scholarship on the topic has referred to as the 'normalization' of CFSP. In addition, the article comments upon the potential significance of the decision in Bank Refah for the EU's external posture. The decision, this article argues, recognizes the opportunity to seek damages stemming from CFSP acts – including decisions adopted under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), that is decisions establishing military operations of civilian missions, and, in those contexts, acts or conduct attributable to EU bodies.
damages, non-contractual liability, CFSP acts, normalization, CSDP missions and operations, restrictive measures, jurisdiction, CJEU, sanctions.

The EU is in obligation to cover the damage to member states and individuals on behalf of the institution that caused it. There is contractual and non-contractual liability of the EU. The aim of this paper is to discuss the non-contractual liability of the EU with special reference to joint liability of the EU and member states. In that sense, we will discuss the case "Šumelj and Others v Commission", which is the first Croatian case before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The action was brought before the General Court on 20 October 2013. The applicants claimed that the Commission had breached its obligation to monitor the implementation of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, under Article 36 to the Act of Accession. The General Court recently issued a negative decision. The applicants lodged an appeal to the Court of Justice but the Court confirmed General Court's decision So, we analyse the judgment of the General Court.

Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another is one of the three main non-contractual obligations dealt with in the DCFR.The law of non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another (in the Common Law known as tort law or the law of torts, but in most other jurisdictions referred to as the law of delict) is the area of law which determines whether one who has suffered a damage can on that account demand reparation (in money or in kind) from another with whom there may be no other legal connection than the causation of damage itself. Besides determining the scope and extent of responsibility for dangers of one's own or another's creation, this field of law serves to protect fundamental rights in the private law domain, that is to say horizontally between citizens inter se. Based on pan-European comparative research which annotates the work, this volume presents model rules on liability. Explanatory comments and illustrations amplify the policy decisions involved.During the drafting process, comparative material from over 25 different EU jurisdictions has been taken into account. The work therefore is not only a presentation of a future model for European rules to come but provides also a fairly detailed indication of the present legal situation in the Member States.